More than 20 people — most of them in support of a compromise map, of which there are several — attended Tuesday’s hearing. They were represented primarily by Councilman Jesse Arreguín and Alejandro Soto-Vigil, along with attorneys for Councilman Kriss Worthington, Stefan Elgstrand and Phoebe Sorgen, all of whom have been named as “real parties of interest” in the lawsuit.

Attorney Margaret Prinzing, of Remcho, Johansen & Purcell, appeared for the city of Berkeley.

Attorneys for the city have asked the judge to order the use of the new boundaries, rather than the 2002 boundaries that would otherwise be in place due to the referendum.

That map approved in December prompted pushback from three council members and many members of the public, who have focused most of their criticism on the new boundaries for District 7. The new boundaries increase the number of students in the district — a goal everyone had agreed on for the area — but cut out some blocks north of campus that some people think should be included.

Critics of the new map say it does not include a range of co-ops, dorms and other group-living situations, while incorporating too many fraternities and sororities, which they argue will decrease the diversity of District 7, and cut out many progressive student voices.

They argued Tuesday before Judge Grillo that the new map also cuts out some of Councilman Kriss Worthington’s key supporters, and that it would not be “politically fair to him” to do that.

Grillo responded only to say that the “map should not favor or disfavor any incumbent.”

Grillo said he was not likely to order the use of the 2002 district lines, due to too many problems with them, including significantly unbalanced populations in several districts. (The goal of redistricting, which follows after each 10-year census count, is to equalize the number of residents who live in each area.)

Grillo’s remaining options would be to order the use of the lines that were approved in December, or choose from three alternatives suggested by critics of those lines: the so-called USDA map, which includes the north-side co-ops, as well as other group-living accommodations, but has been rejected by the Berkeley City Council; a new “minimum deviation map,” which includes the smallest possible population differences, according to its creators; and the MAPMINDS plan, which was submitted as part of the 2011 redistricting process.

The city has argued that it would be unwise to use the “minimum deviation” map because it hasn’t gone through the proper public process, and that its numbers have not been verified or analyzed. The city has argued that MAPMINDS, too, is deficient, for the same reasons, and notes that it hasn’t come before the city since Measure R was passed and may not comply with the city charter. (See those maps here.)

All of the “real parties of interest” — the opponents of the city map who appeared in court Tuesday — said their preference is for the use of the USDA map, which they said is simply an amendment to the approved map. But they said they would support the other alternatives if the judge does not choose the USDA.

Tuesday, they criticized the city for what they said had been problems with the public process around redistricting, including the hiring of attorneys to handle the redistricting lawsuit before council had given approval, and the scheduling of the redistricting map to be on the November ballot rather than part of a special election in June. They said the city did not give proper advance notice via meeting agendas of those decisions.

Richard Miadich — the attorney for Worthington and Elgstrand — argued that, because of those alleged violations, the city began the lawsuit with “unclean hands,” and asked Judge Grillo to rule in favor of the USDA map. Miadich said that, if Grillo chose to go with the map adopted by the council in December, he would be entering the “political thicket.”

Prinzing, the lawyer representing the city, said hiring attorneys is allowed under the municipal code and does not need council approval. She said, too, that when council decided to put redistricting on the November ballot, it was because many members of the public had asked for that result, because too many students — who would be affected by the issue and want to vote — would be away in June.

Prinzing also said, to address the questions that had been raised about the alleged violations, the Berkeley City Council planned to vote Tuesday night to ratify its earlier actions. She said she would notify the court Wednesday morning that those actions had taken place.

(Council did vote to take that action Tuesday night. Council also considered a proposal by Worthington’s office to look at a variety of other compromise maps — including the USDA, minimum deviation and MAPMINDS proposals — but none of them were adopted.)

The attorney representing Phoebe Sorgen, Jose Luis Fuentes, asked the judge Tuesday afternoon to simply deny the city’s request altogether so that the issue could be sorted out at the local level rather than in the courts.

“There’s not enough evidence before you. You avoid partisan politics. You stay out of this. That’s what a government by the people for the people means,” said Fuentes. “Don’t get involved.”

Councilman Max Anderson, who also was named by the city in the lawsuit, told the judge he believed an order upholding the council-majority-approved lines would have a “chilling effect on citizen participation, and I think that is one of the goals of this lawsuit, actually. It denies the people their legal right to be heard and to be heard in terms of their ability to elect, through the democratic process, the people who govern them.”

Prinzing, representing the city, said the city does not believe it made the violations claimed by its opponents in the lawsuit. She asked the judge, at the time of his decision, also to issue an order that would limit the possibility of appeal so as to allow the registrar of voters and city clerk enough time to prepare for the November election.

Grillo said he did not plan to do that.

“I’m not going to do anything that assumes the inevitability or correctness of the result,” he said. “If this is appealed, the appellate court is going to look at this really, really carefully and really, really quick.”

He said his decision would be available in hardcopy by 4 p.m. Wednesday, but that it would potentially be posted online earlier in the day. Berkeleyside will report on that decision when it is available.

After the hearing, Councilman Arreguín said there had been no consensus or decision among those opposed to the new redistricting map about whether an appeal would be filed.

“We’ll have to see what the judge says,” he said. “We haven’t talked about it.”

The Mayor and his 5 cronies continue to refuse to compromise or to respect the opinions of the vast majority of constituents who have weighed in on this matter. Many of the Real Parties of Interest have been discussing an appeal and are preparing, in case it comes to that. It was discussed with two of the attorneys who argued yesterday and with a couple of additional attorneys today. Kriss Worthington, Jesse Arreguin, Max Anderson, Alejandro Soto-Vigil, Stephanie Myashiro, Stephan Elgstrand, Paul Kealoha Blake, Matt Lewis, Phoebe Sorgen and Jose Luis Fuentes are all heroes eloquently and passionately defending democracy and the people of Berkeley. Please sign this petition. It is still timely:http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/berkeley-city-council?source=s.fwd&r_by=363923

Andrew D

This is true if your idea of democracy is that your own opinion is representative of “the people” de facto. I’m not for or against any of these maps. I am against the redonkulous contortions our dysfunctional representatives have gone through over this CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED redistricting exercise now 4 YEARS after the latest census. If anyone wants to get a crash course in how drawing voting district lines is an inherently political process they need only watch our town’s most recent antics.

One side is not “the will of the people”. The people who have “weighed in on this” are exclusively people who have a vested interest in petty politics. To characterize the referendum drive as the forces of democracy while “the mayor and his 5 cronies” are the political ju-jitsu masters of rigging the system is laughable. They’re all out of touch with reality.

The silent majority actually want people in office who don’t characterize each and every decision in this town as either an “us” or a “them” proposal carrying the weight of entire ideological philosophies. We want to effectively use scare resources in productive ways to enhance our shared community, and a neighbors we’d like to do so while maintaining some decorum and polite tones as, you know, we’re neighbors sharing a community. It’s enough to make one consider term limits as a solution.

THIS IS NOT DEMOCRACY

Kriss Worthington and his 2 cronies continue to abuse the democratic process and attempt to deny student citizens a role in local politics through their misleading and mean-spirited referendum campaign. How long will they continue to try to silence the student voice for their own selfish gain? THIS IS NOT WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE!

Check ‘Em

The Mayor and his 5 cronies continue to refuse to compromise or to respect the opinions of the vast majority of constituents who have weighed in on this matter.

FACT CHECK: The 7,896 citizens who signed the referendum represent roughly 6% of the population of the city of Berkeley. 6% is a long, long way from being a “vast majority” of anything.

Woolsey

Agreed. Can we just get rid of the current batch of lunatics debating clones, gerrymandered districts, and international politics and bring in some folks to deal with our real problems – like being safe on our streets.

Bill N

Personally I would go with the one passed by the majority of the city council since that’s how government works where we elect people to represent our views. If the other map when in the election so be it but for now that is the map that the people’s representatives have voted on and approved. For me none of the reasons given in the trial seem to outweigh to use another map outweigh this fact.

Woolsey

Oops, meant drones, not clones, in my comment; however, I wouldn’t be surprised if clones had managed to be on the agenda.

David D.

If by “vast majority of constituents” you mean “vocal minority of constituents,” then yes, they continue to refuse to compromise with them. After all, why would they when the process and numbers are on their side?

Guest

Perhaps you too are lost in the fog created by Worthington in an effort to retain his council seat. He doesn’t want a student district: he would be very likely to lose an election in such a district. His safest option is for the current districts to continue as they are, but of course he can’t say that because he pretends to be an advocate for students, and anyway everyone can see that it is high time for redistricting. So he has presented an option that plausibly gives him a slightly better chance in an election, but he has done it in a way that might tie the process up in court and force the city to go with the status quo (no student district). If he really cared about getting student interests represented on the council, he wouldn’t be doing something that risks maintaining the status quo.

andrew johnson

It’s now past 1600 hours… do we have a ruling?

MissNDemocracy

The city council majority refused to compromise nor to heed the vast majority of constituents who weighed in at many meetings & via email, leaving no recourse for redress of government but the referendum. They delayed as long as possible to make it harder to get enough signatures over winter break, but we did it! We followed the letter of the law. Then they illegally spent $30,000 of taxpayers’ public funds, without notifying the public in advance, to get an apparently crooked judge expeditie bypassing the legal referendum, while Real Parties of Interest spent savings & went into debt to defend democracy & the people of Berkeley. It’s not too late to sign our petition, please: http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/berkeley-city-council?source=s.fwd&r_by=363923